The new Mac mini is almost certainly coming

[PickUrPoison]

<snip>

You can't stop spreading that assumption of yours as fact, can you? You've been already corrected multiple times, clearly showing that you miss or ignore several factors in your calculation (such as technical progress, price decreases etc.).

The only reason that there still is a $499 mini with 4GB Ram and a spinner, is Apple's ignorance and/or greed. They could most probably offer a mini with 8GB Ram and a small SSD at the same (or close to the) price point of the current entry mini, without significant (if any) impact to their holy margin. They could also lower the prices for the existing model.

But neither is - to say it with Apple's own wording - in their DNA.

I haven’t been “corrected” and I’m not making any calculations. You can call it Apple being greedy if it makes you feel better, but Apple prices based on the value they think they’re providing, not on BoM cost.

Deal with reality. You’re shooting the messenger.

Right now, with a 4 year old model, Apple charges $899 for an 8GB/256GB SSD mini.

If they thought it was overpriced and wanted to charge less, they’ve had years to do a price cut. They haven’t.

So why would you expect a refreshed model to be cheaper?
[doublepost=1532480922][/doublepost]

SSD's are dirt cheap Apple is simply greedy as they can be.
2tb for 379 and I have purchased these for under 270 when on sales
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156175
1tb for 185 I purchased this for under 170 on a sale
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156174
500gb for 98 I got one of these at 85
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156173
250gb for 65 I got this for 59
https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156172

So if I can get a 250gb ssd for 59 I know apple can get it for under 50
They could offer a 250gb ssd and 8gb ram for 599 and turn a profit quite easily.

Many, many people think Macs are overpriced.

Apple wants $899 for the config you want them to sell for $599.

 

[Neodym]

Right now, with a 4 year old model, Apple charges $899 for an 8GB/256GB SSD mini.

If they thought it was overpriced and wanted to charge less, they’ve had years to do a price cut. They haven’t.

So why would you expect a refreshed model to be cheaper?

That's a hilarious argumentation. If I'd be bored, I'd go back and see which older top-of-the-line Mac mini was comparable to today's entry mini and ask you why they "lowered" the price for that configuration ...

Yes, Apple tends to rather not adjust prices for older technology, for whatever reason (if there's any positive for people wanting to sell: it keeps 2nd hand prices up). That wasn't much of a problem back in the days when Apple still did a yearly or at least bi-annual refresh. With them dragging their feet now, it just became "visible" to many more people.

But they have a looong track record to improve technology with model refreshes, while trying to stick to a price point (if they found it to work well).

So it's very possible that a refreshed mini could offer 8GB Ram/256GB SSD in the entry model of a potential 2018 mini, at the price point of the current entry model. Just because prices have come down massively since technology and price point of the 2014 model have been set.

You are arguing, just because the _current_ 8GB/256GB mini costs $899, the refreshed model would need to cost the same. As I tried to explain before, that is plain wrong. Not sure if you're really unable to understand that or if you're just tr***ing, to be honest.

 

[EightyTwenty]

I haven’t been “corrected” and I’m not making any calculations.

Yes you have and yes you are.

Deal with reality. You’re shooting the messenger.

You should take your own advice.

Between 2015 and 2017, the entry-level Macbook Air had it's RAM doubled to 8GB and it's CPU speed increased without increasing the price by even a penny.

Between 2010 and 2011, the same thing happened when RAM was bumped from 2GB to 4GB. Again... NO PRICE INCREASE.

Ditto for the Mac Mini. RAM doubled from 2011 to 2012. Guess what? No price increase. Hell, the price actually DECREASED for the entry-level machine with DOUBLE the RAM, a way faster CPU and way better graphics between 2011 and 2014.

What specifically about this concept do you find hard to understand?

So why would you expect a refreshed model to be cheaper?.

Because every technology company on planet earth, including Apple, does this every single year with every single product. Always has and always will. The price-performance ratio goes down every year. In other words, you get MORE performance for the SAME or LOWER price.

This is a very, very simple concept.

 

[masterbaron]

The price-performance ratio goes down every year. In other words, you get MORE performance for the SAME or LOWER price.

Actually, if the ratio increases ... the Price/Performance becomes greater but your assessment is correct - you pay less for more on the same "older" technology. The bigger the "delta" the bigger the price/performance ratio.

 

[enc0re]

If they did 8GB/256GB at $500, it would be an insane value. Have a gander at the mini PC market. For $500, you routinely get only 4GB ram, a 500GB spinner or 32(!)GB of SSD, and maybe a copy of Windows!

Here's the HP Elite Slice (most comparable PC product to Mac Mini IMHO) base model. And that one runs $729!

• Windows 10 Pro 64
• 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i3 processor
• 4 GB memory; 500 GB HDD storage
• Intel® HD Graphics 530
  

 

[toke lahti]

Yes, Apple tends to rather not adjust prices for older technology, for whatever reason (if there's any positive for people wanting to sell: it keeps 2nd hand prices up).

2nd hand value dropped when ram was soldered.
Another drop when ssd went non standard or soldered.

 

[philipma1957]

Here is a small for ssd https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820156177

cost is 92.99

Crucial MX500 M.2 2280 500GB SATA III 3D NAND Internal Solid State Drive (SSD) CT500MX500SSD4


it is better quality

• 
  
  
  • Sequential reads/writes up to 560/510 MB/s and random reads/writes up to 95k/90k on all file types
  • Accelerated by Micron 3D NAND technology
  • Integrated Power Loss Immunity preserves all your saved work if the power unexpectedly gets cut
  • AES 256-bit hardware-based encryption keeps data safe and secure from hackers and thieves

Apple could play smart put this in with 8gb ram and get 699 price point at a profit and have a beast.

I for one would buy it even if soldered in ram and ssd. They could get more people back into the system as this would even attract non mac users.

the lenovo m710 tiny is ugly but is a freakin beast.

it can use an i7 7700t 32gb ram

cost with the i7 7700t and 32gb ram is 926 usd

that comes with a 500gb spinner hdd

buy a 4tb ssd go nuts they run around 1000 and for 1926 you have an ugly machine that is a killer.

I have the m700 tiny with an i7 6700t 32gb ram and a 500gb ssd.

It kills my mac mini's I spent 300 on a labor day sale pulled the ram pulled the hdd pulled the g4400t sold them for 100 net 200
found an i7 6700t for 225 on ebay got a 500gb ssd for 100 and got lucky on ram before the price spike 32gb ram for 150 so 200+225+100+150 = 775 for a monster pc

 

[redheeler]

If they did 8GB/256GB at $500, it would be an insane value. Have a gander at the mini PC market. For $500, you routinely get only 4GB ram, a 500GB spinner or 32(!)GB of SSD, and maybe a copy of Windows!

Here's the HP Elite Slice (most comparable PC product to Mac Mini IMHO) base model. And that one runs $729!

• Windows 10 Pro 64
• 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i3 processor
• 4 GB memory; 500 GB HDD storage
• Intel® HD Graphics 530

Yikes, that's not a very good value. You can at least find a small-form-factor PC with a 7th-generation Kaby Lake Core i5 for that price. And probably an 8th-generation Coffee Lake quad-core i5 by the end of the year.

The $549 Mac mini in my proposed lineup would come with a 32 GB SSD + 500 GB Fusion drive, 8 GB RAM, and an 8th-generation dual-core Coffee Lake Core i3. That'd be a very compelling offering for the price point, especially when you consider the benefits of MacOS and the high-end SSDs Apple uses (add another $50 for a 128 GB pure SSD).

If Apple wanted to, they could easily dominate the mid- to high-end small-form-factor PC market. But it's a smaller market compared to smartphones or laptops, and they simply don't see it as much of a priority.

 

[Neodym]

If they did 8GB/256GB at $500, it would be an insane value. Have a gander at the mini PC market. For $500, you routinely get only 4GB ram, a 500GB spinner or 32(!)GB of SSD, and maybe a copy of Windows!

Here's the HP Elite Slice (most comparable PC product to Mac Mini IMHO) base model. And that one runs $729!

• Windows 10 Pro 64
• 6th Generation Intel® Core™ i3 processor
• 4 GB memory; 500 GB HDD storage
• Intel® HD Graphics 530

The HP Elite Slice has a total volume of 967cm3, while the mini has 1.359cm3. Even if I give the HP some slack (due to its more rounded edges and the - possibly - thicker outer shell on the mini), it's still a whopping 25% smaller in usable volume. Subtract the external PSU, and it's still 20%.

That makes the difference between

• having 2 2.5" slots

and

• having (wanting?) to use significantly more expensive NVMe SSD's over the option to use inexpensive 2.5" SSD's. And probably further, more expensive components due to miniaturization.

On a NUC, which is still smaller (and sometimes significantly so), the situation is worse.

The mini also has significant cost advantages due to platform synergies with hight unit numbers, which most probably isn't the case with the competition (be it HP's Elite Slice or a NUC).

Win10 Pro 64 is another cost driver, where Apple can internally distribute the macOS cost over a wide range of products (perhaps even at cost plus), where HP has to pay significant license fees to Microsoft.

So the comparison is on the edge of being Apples and Oranges all in all.

Especially, as a NUC with i3/HD620/8GB/240GB/Win10Pro can also be purchased for as "little" as 469€ on local Amazon (which is not known for being the cheapest vendor). Barebones run even cheaper (around 250€).

 

[DesertSurfer]

The mini runs cool and quiet. That's a big selling point for me. I could be wrong, but the NUC's I've seen reviewed are neither cool nor quiet. This is a case where smaller is not better, perhaps. I would be happy with the same mini form.

 

[navaira]

The mini runs cool and quiet. That's a big selling point for me. I could be wrong, but the NUC's I've seen reviewed are neither cool nor quiet. This is a case where smaller is not better, perhaps. I would be happy with the same mini form.

I have a NUC serving as media server and it makes no sound at all. Maybe if I put it literally next to my ear, but definitely not in normal use, no matter that we've been having a heatwave for weeks. My router overheats, my rMB feels like a radiator, NUC just doesn't seem to care at all.

 

[Yvan256]

The Mac mini specifically may be dying on the vine, because it's a market Apple isn't interested in pursuing.

But at the same time, they're still selling 2014 technology at 2018 prices instead of either updating it at least a bit or simply discontinuing it altogether.

Apple have put potential buyers and current Mac mini users in the weird position of questioning Apple's plans and their own future upgrade path at the same time - for 4 years, while at the same time going on stage and saying it's "sad" that some PC users are still using their 5-year-old computers.

And when we look at the "upgrade" the Mac mini had in 2014 vs the 2012 Mac mini, we might as well say the Mac mini really is 6 years old at this point. Now that's really sad.

I've stopped waiting for an updated Mac mini and switched my future upgrade to a laptop. But the MacBook Pro is too expensive and too powerful for my needs, the MacBook is also too expensive and too under-powered for the price. My only other option is the MacBook Air but at this point I'm not going to buy outdated technology (CPU, GPU, maximum of 8GB RAM and dated LCD tech) so I can only wait (yet again) to see what Apple's plans are with the rumours of the "low-cost Apple laptop" we keep hearing about.

So I have the same problem as those waiting for any news about the Mac mini: Apple almost never announces their future hardware and they only update their low-end computers every 2~4 years or so. Computer technology advances a lot faster than that and that's why a lot of us are unhappy with Apple right now.

 

[Zdigital2015]

Although I have not found a list for purchase at Amazon yet, it appears that Intel has formally released their Bean Canyon NUCs - https://liliputing.com/2018/07/intel-launches-coffee-lake-nuc-mini-computers.html

While still not what most of would like to see Apple release, it serves as a reminder of what is possible, should Apple choose to get on the stick.

My wish list (trying to be as realistic as possible with what I expect, if Apple actually updates the mini):

All
Gigabit Ethernet (10Gb is just not feasible at this price point)
Wireless-802.11AC
Bluetooth 5.0
HDMI 2.0b
2x Thunderbolt 3 (Titan Ridge JL7540x1, DP 1.2 support for all but Core i7-8705G, which has DP 1.4 support on the CPU/GPU package along with HDMI 2.0b)
4x USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type A
SDXC
Audio In
Headphone

1TB 5400 RPM HDD
1TB Fusion
2TB Fusion
256 Flash
512 Flash
1TB Flash

8, 16 or 32GB of RAM, 2 SO-DIMM slots, user accessible

Base
Core i5-8250U
8GB DDR-2400, up to 32GB, 2 slots
1TB 5400 RPM HDD
$499

Tier 1
Core i5-8259U, Upgradeable to Core i7-8559U
8GB DDR-2400, up to 32GB, 2 slots
1 TB 5400 RPM HDD
$699

Tier 2
Core i5-8569U, Upgradeable to Core i7-8705G w/ Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics
8GB DDR-2400, up to 32GB, 2 slots
1TB Fusion Drive
$999

Jeez, reading this over it seems like a complete fantasy, but it is actually pretty plausible, if Apple set their mind to it. YEAH, RIGHT! LOL! :/

 

[MRrainer]

Computer technology advances a lot faster than that and that's why a lot of us are unhappy with Apple right now.

Actually, it doesn't. Not anymore. Even official Intel documentation often mentions only a 10% or 20% speed gain from one generation to the next.
And those are often only theoretical.
Media pundits would like you to believe otherwise, but in reality, advances have slowed to a crawl.
This is masked by Intel and AMD slapping an almost ridiculous number of cores into their highest-end offerings (32 cores in the TR2 this Autumn), which is slowly trickling down to their lower-end offerings so that we get 6-core CPUs in MBPs now.

Just compare Geekbench-scores. The i7 iMac of 2017 has about 19000.
The 2012 i7 2.3GHz has almost 10000.
So you get 50% more in five years (or 4.5, given that the Mini is from late 2012 and the iMac from mid 2017).
SSD and GPU improvements did happen - but most users and buyers of a Mini aren't interested in those at all. Or at least not beyond the ability to drive one or two 4k displays. Nor are very many interested in putting 32GB of RAM in it.

I guess with this years iMac, the performance will finally be double that of my 2012 Mini (2.3 GHz i7). It's unclear if Apple will offer a MacMini to match the iMac - or release one that trails it.

 

[Yvan256]

I'd rather have a 128GB SSD than a 1TB hard/fusion drive.

 

[DesertSurfer]

Actually, it doesn't. Not anymore. Even official Intel documentation often mentions only a 10% or 20% speed gain from one generation to the next.
And those are often only theoretical.
Media pundits would like you to believe otherwise, but in reality, advances have slowed to a crawl.
This is masked by Intel and AMD slapping an almost ridiculous number of cores into their highest-end offerings (32 cores in the TR2 this Autumn), which is slowly trickling down to their lower-end offerings so that we get 6-core CPUs in MBPs now.

Just compare Geekbench-scores. The i7 iMac of 2017 has about 19000.
The 2012 i7 2.3GHz has almost 10000.
So you get 50% more in five years (or 4.5, given that the Mini is from late 2012 and the iMac from mid 2017).
SSD and GPU improvements did happen - but most users and buyers of a Mini aren't interested in those at all. Or at least not beyond the ability to drive one or two 4k displays. Nor are very many interested in putting 32GB of RAM in it.

I guess with this years iMac, the performance will finally be double that of my 2012 Mini (2.3 GHz i7). It's unclear if Apple will offer a MacMini to match the iMac - or release one that trails it.

I'm not disagreeing with your points, just the math. 19,000/10,000 = 1.9, or a 90% increase.

 

[enc0re]

I'd rather have a 128GB than a 1TB hard/fusion drive.

I think 128GB would be a sensible base configuration for the Mini. Let people who need more later buy externals. USB-C is plenty fast for non-application storage.

 

[masterbaron]

Actually, it doesn't. Not anymore. Even official Intel documentation often mentions only a 10% or 20% speed gain from one generation to the next.

Add to that the hosting company and the carrier and you have a new machine at home that's essentially crippled (capped) for web browsing (probably the majority of Mini users) ... no matter how much faster your machine is ... web traffic will dictate otherwise. So unless you're doing real work (rendering/computational) the masses won't gain much until they use an application, copy a large file or watch a high-rez movie - of course if they want to play games they're using a PC.

 

[nutmac]

I'd rather have a 128GB than a 1TB hard/fusion drive.

Quoting Luke Skywalker, "it's time for the spinning disk to end." At the very least, I don't think hard disk, Fusion or not, belongs in a modern Mac line up.

Those with larger storage needs can always add external disks. The only complication is that certain files cannot be easily stored on external disks, such as applications. But 128 GB should sufficient for most users, provided that they store iTunes, Photos, etc. on external or cloud.

 

[MRrainer]

I'm not disagreeing with your points, just the math. 19,000/10,000 = 1.9, or a 90% increase.

Yes, I wanted to say "double".
Of course, the 2014 Mini was a real outlier in that it was slower than the previous model.
I really hope they won't do that again.

I have no need for gaming and my internet-connection is too slow for 4k streaming. I just need CPU for running VMs and a big screen.
2012 Mini + 30" display + 24" display works well enough.

 

[redheeler]

Although I have not found a list for purchase at Amazon yet, it appears that Intel has formally released their Bean Canyon NUCs - https://liliputing.com/2018/07/intel-launches-coffee-lake-nuc-mini-computers.html

While still not what most of would like to see Apple release, it serves as a reminder of what is possible, should Apple choose to get on the stick.

My wish list (trying to be as realistic as possible with what I expect, if Apple actually updates the mini):

All
Gigabit Ethernet (10Gb is just not feasible at this price point)
Wireless-802.11AC
Bluetooth 5.0
HDMI 2.0b
2x Thunderbolt 3 (Titan Ridge JL7540x1, DP 1.2 support for all but Core i7-8705G, which has DP 1.4 support on the CPU/GPU package along with HDMI 2.0b)
4x USB 3.1 Gen 1 Type A
SDXC
Audio In
Headphone

1TB 5400 RPM HDD
1TB Fusion
2TB Fusion
256 Flash
512 Flash
1TB Flash

8, 16 or 32GB of RAM, 2 SO-DIMM slots, user accessible

Base
Core i5-8250U
8GB DDR-2400, up to 32GB, 2 slots
1TB 5400 RPM HDD
$499

Tier 1
Core i5-8259U, Upgradeable to Core i7-8559U
8GB DDR-2400, up to 32GB, 2 slots
1 TB 5400 RPM HDD
$699

Tier 2
Core i5-8569U, Upgradeable to Core i7-8705G w/ Radeon RX Vega M GL graphics
8GB DDR-2400, up to 32GB, 2 slots
1TB Fusion Drive
$999

Jeez, reading this over it seems like a complete fantasy, but it is actually pretty plausible, if Apple set their mind to it. YEAH, RIGHT! LOL! :/

If Apple follows through with your prediction and doesn't make Fusion drive or SSD standard... IMHO, absolutely pathetic.

MacOS performance on these slow spinning drives has been awful for years now, even just booting MacOS and launching basic apps, and the 5400 RPM HDD-only Macs are slow right out of the box. No one deserves that experience after buying a brand new Mac.

 

[Zdigital2015]

If Apple follows through with your prediction and doesn't make Fusion drive or SSD standard... IMHO, absolutely pathetic.

MacOS performance on these slow spinning drives has been awful for years now, even just booting MacOS and launching basic apps, and the 5400 RPM HDD-only Macs are slow right out of the box. No one deserves that experience after buying a brand new Mac.

I agree with you 100% - I believe that a 1TB Fusion Drive should be the minimum standard across the product lines that still use it (iMac and Mac mini) and that the base flash storage should be 128GB, not that pathetic 24GB K-Mart Blue Light Special they foisted upon us. Four straight years of selling a Mac mini with 4GB of soldered DRAM and a 500GB is embarrassing, at least to me. The Mac mini has so many different uses for as many types of users and for those still not quite convinced that the iPad is the future, it represents Apple’s best lure to potential switchers, especially to those who purchased an iPhone and rely on a desktop PC, but don’t really care for Windows (7, 8, 10, et al). I sincerely hope that Apple will update the mini soon, even if it simply matches my relatively conservative wish list. It would go a long way towards shoring up an important bulwark should the smartphone market begin to slow down as it continues to mature. Just my 2 cents.

 

[HalfNelson]

Actually, it doesn't. Not anymore. Even official Intel documentation often mentions only a 10% or 20% speed gain from one generation to the next.
And those are often only theoretical.
Media pundits would like you to believe otherwise, but in reality, advances have slowed to a crawl.
This is masked by Intel and AMD slapping an almost ridiculous number of cores into their highest-end offerings (32 cores in the TR2 this Autumn), which is slowly trickling down to their lower-end offerings so that we get 6-core CPUs in MBPs now.

Just compare Geekbench-scores. The i7 iMac of 2017 has about 19000.
The 2012 i7 2.3GHz has almost 10000.
So you get 50% more in five years (or 4.5, given that the Mini is from late 2012 and the iMac from mid 2017).
SSD and GPU improvements did happen - but most users and buyers of a Mini aren't interested in those at all. Or at least not beyond the ability to drive one or two 4k displays. Nor are very many interested in putting 32GB of RAM in it.

I guess with this years iMac, the performance will finally be double that of my 2012 Mini (2.3 GHz i7). It's unclear if Apple will offer a MacMini to match the iMac - or release one that trails it.

A more accurate comparison to the 2012 Mac Mini, would be comparing the Benchmarks from Intel’s 45W i7 from 2012, and the same 45W i7 from 2018. Coincidentally both i7s (the 3720QM from 2012, and the 8850H from 2018) are 2.6Ghz with one being 4 core and the newest one being 6 core. Benchmark of 10,666 in 2012, and 21236 in 2018. That is nearly a 100% increase in performance out of a 45W CPU. User upgradeable RAM, removable storage,TB 3, and a 45W i7 are the only things I need in a Mac Mini to feel like a true successor to the beast that I’ve been running non-stop since 2012.

 

[Miat]

but at this point I'm not going to buy outdated technology (CPU, GPU, maximum of 8GB RAM and dated LCD tech)

The Air's screen is its biggest weakness. It was only just acceptable in the 2012 model. Now, not at all.

I have a 2012 13" Air, and it is still great little machine. The screen is my major complaint about it.

 

[saulinpa]

What's wrong with the Air's display? It has a higher resolution than my Dell work laptop.